"The New Mexico Spaceport Authority is seeking $57 million in capital outlay this year for infrastructure projects it considers critical, beginning with $25 million for a welcoming center and visitor access control installations."

Quoting:"Feels extremely remorseful ... Maezawa has requested the show's cancellation citing "personal reasons." "Despite my genuine and honest determination toward the show, there was a part of me that still had mixed feelings about my participation," he wrote on Twitter. "To think that 27,722 women, with earnest intentions and courage, had used their precious time to apply makes me feel extremely remorseful to conclude and inform everyone with this selfish decision of mine." "

Luckily for us, the inevitable rubbish drama-reality-show has been "postponed". I get sick to think that one day this kind of BS will actually provide enough economic motivation for aerospace tech.

Quoting:"Long March 5B could launch uncrewed test in April. China's next-generation spacecraft, designed for deep space flight, has arrived at a coastal spaceport in preparation for a test flight. It could launch on the Long March 5B rocket as early as April, Space.com reports. The capsule, which is 8.8 meters long, has a capacity for up to six taikonauts."

With a slow and cautious approach, Chinese state-sponsored space programs are closing the technological gap against NASA's programs. Will the Chinese success be enough to make US politicians understand that never-ending pork funding to Boeing and LM (SLS+Orion) is the best way to push backward on progress/innovation? Will they ever understand that private competition is key to get state-of-the-art technology at a reasonable price? (These were two rethorical questions)...

"The New Mexico Spaceport Authority is seeking $57 million in capital outlay this year for infrastructure projects it considers critical, beginning with $25 million for a welcoming center and visitor access control installations."

what mainly keeps another startup from just copying our work is the required fleet of Mach 2.2+ launch aircraft. We bought all of them, you see… all of them on the planet.

From reading that blog post it sounds like they bought all of the remaining airworthy F-104s, possibly from the previous, defunct, space launch companies that tried this approach?, but I wonder if Uncle Bob's Rocket Co. turns out to be a money maker someone else could take a look at the MiG-21 or the various derivatives that China produced? Originally had a similar Mach 2.0 top speed, mass produced so probably a few still airworthy and maybe jobs lots going cheap.

On the downside a much cruder aircraft than the Starfighter and I have no idea about their safety record, supply of qualified pilots and what it would take to certify them in the small sat launch role.

So, altogether the Spaceport Authority is asking for just over $300 million from New Mexico, with more funding requests to come in the future, certainly.

That money isn't totally crazy compared to say, a large commercial airport. But I'm not sure that business model translates to spaceflight, at least as it exists today and the near future.

Imaginary numbers time: if the economic benefit to the taxpayers of New Mexico is $100k per Virgin Galactic launch (let's say with taxes on flights, and the indirect taxes on employees/etc they net 10% of the price of 4 x riders at $250k each), and let's say there is 1 flight per day minus issues / weather = 300 flights per year (wildly optimistic guessing). Assuming Virgin started launching tomorrow, and had enough demand to fill 1200 seats this year, NM would break even after 10+ years of supporting essentially an interest-free loan to Virgin?

What happens when SS/SH flies out of Texas and/or Florida (let's guess within 5 years) taking tourists to orbit or around the moon for the same or less than Virgin charges for a single sub-orbital hop that some say does not technically reach space?

"The New Mexico Spaceport Authority is seeking $57 million in capital outlay this year for infrastructure projects it considers critical, beginning with $25 million for a welcoming center and visitor access control installations."

And that qualifies as 'critical infrastructure' ....how??

Here in Florida, we would call that a tourist trap.

And to our Legislature that would indeed be considered critical infrastructure

But there are right ways and wrong ways to do air launching. Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit drops its rocket horizontally from a Boeing 747 flying at 35,000 feet going Mach 0.7. We “toss” our rocket while flying in a 45-degree climb at 78,000 feet going Mach 2.2, which is much more exciting. You can see the curvature of the Earth.

Launching higher, faster, and at the proper angle lets us use a smaller cheaper rocket on a smaller cheaper aircraft for a lower launch price.

Why is 45 degrees "the proper angle"? I'm not an expert so I can't tell if this is nonsense or if there's a good reason that I'm missing.

If I'm calculating right, Cringely wants to launch with a horizontal speed that's 290m/s faster than Virgin Orbit. Since LEO is about 7800m/s, I guess that's not really a significant factor?

I guess the vertical speed might be more interesting. They're dropping at 24km and, ignoring air resistance and thrust, I think it would coast up to about 40km in a minute. More time before falling means they can use a lower-thrust (lighter, cheaper) engine to reach orbital speed quickly enough, and they don't have to waste as much of that thrust fighting gravity. But in that case, why launch at 45 degrees rather than vertically? Surely vertical would give you a lot more time before falling, so you could use even less thrust and be even more efficient. (Might be tricky to get the plane to fly vertically, but in that case 45 degrees doesn't sound like "the proper angle" in a general sense, it's just the best compromise between plane performance and rocket performance in their specific case.)

I'm pretty sure his comment about "we could replace the whole [GPS] constellation in less than a day" is nonsense though, since GPS satellites are somewhat heavier than 12kg.

Along time ago, seemingly in a galaxy far, far, away (the 1980's were like that) he made a lot of sense and had some interesting insights into the nascent micro computer industry. Like a George Lucas screenplay, sometimes it's best to leave things as they were.

Quoting:"Feels extremely remorseful ... Maezawa has requested the show's cancellation citing "personal reasons." "Despite my genuine and honest determination toward the show, there was a part of me that still had mixed feelings about my participation," he wrote on Twitter. "To think that 27,722 women, with earnest intentions and courage, had used their precious time to apply makes me feel extremely remorseful to conclude and inform everyone with this selfish decision of mine." "

Let's face it, if you plan on funding technology with media there's only one tried and true solution. In this case the answer is this: Space Porn.

Along time ago, seemingly in a galaxy far, far, away (the 1980's were like that) he made a lot of sense and had some interesting insights into the nascent micro computer industry. Like a George Lucas screenplay, sometimes it's best to leave things as they were.

What is his expertise he is bringing to yet another small-sat launch start-up? Apparently name recognition and blogging skills. The new space venture capital play is reaching peak hype when the tech bottom feeders and hangers on at the margins start crawling into the light.

Quoting:"Feels extremely remorseful ... Maezawa has requested the show's cancellation citing "personal reasons." "Despite my genuine and honest determination toward the show, there was a part of me that still had mixed feelings about my participation," he wrote on Twitter. "To think that 27,722 women, with earnest intentions and courage, had used their precious time to apply makes me feel extremely remorseful to conclude and inform everyone with this selfish decision of mine." "

Let's face it, if you plan on funding technology with media there's only one tried and true solution. In this case the answer is this: Space Porn.

"The New Mexico Spaceport Authority is seeking $57 million in capital outlay this year for infrastructure projects it considers critical, beginning with $25 million for a welcoming center and visitor access control installations."

And that qualifies as 'critical infrastructure' ....how??

And it's important to recall how deeply broke New Mexico is. From the time I've spent working with that state and local governments, it's really shocking how little money they have to spend on their citizens, and how much of an impact that shortfall causes. That said they need industries to drive revenue but this feels like a shakedown to a state that isn't in a position to argue "with progress."

"The New Mexico Spaceport Authority is seeking $57 million in capital outlay this year for infrastructure projects it considers critical, beginning with $25 million for a welcoming center and visitor access control installations."

what mainly keeps another startup from just copying our work is the required fleet of Mach 2.2+ launch aircraft. We bought all of them, you see… all of them on the planet.

From reading that blog post it sounds like they bought all of the remaining airworthy F-104s, possibly from the previous, defunct, space launch companies that tried this approach?, but I wonder if Uncle Bob's Rocket Co. turns out to be a money maker someone else could take a look at the MiG-21 or the various derivatives that China produced? Originally had a similar Mach 2.0 top speed, mass produced so probably a few still airworthy and maybe jobs lots going cheap.

On the downside a much cruder aircraft than the Starfighter and I have no idea about their safety record, supply of qualified pilots and what it would take to certify them in the small sat launch role.

</uninformedarmwaving>

If you're going to buy surplus Soviet hardware instead of a mach 2.05 Mig-21 I think you'd want a mach 2.83 Mig-25 or Mig-31; or if hanging a heavy rocket on a 25/31 would require too much work, a Mig-23 fighter bomber has similar capabilities to the 21 while being somewhat faster at Mach 2.35. The general point that there're lots of old fighters with mach 2 or higher afterburner speeds is entirely valid.

But there are right ways and wrong ways to do air launching. Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit drops its rocket horizontally from a Boeing 747 flying at 35,000 feet going Mach 0.7. We “toss” our rocket while flying in a 45-degree climb at 78,000 feet going Mach 2.2, which is much more exciting. You can see the curvature of the Earth.

Launching higher, faster, and at the proper angle lets us use a smaller cheaper rocket on a smaller cheaper aircraft for a lower launch price.

Why is 45 degrees "the proper angle"? I'm not an expert so I can't tell if this is nonsense or if there's a good reason that I'm missing.

It’s entirely dependent on the launch profile. For a given amount of thrust (and acceleration), there’s a natural “turn” as horizontal velocity continues to increase, but vertical velocity is absorbed by gravity. For their rocket and staging parameters, that may simply be the appropriate angle to begin this turn and follow it all the way into an appropriate orbit.

Was anyone else a bit disappointed by that SFN story about the In Flight Abort test?

Other than a couple new numbers, there wasn't much there that wasn't already covered by the post-flight press conference.

That is the problem with highly successful missions that fulfil all objectives - not a lot to write about. Now OFT, entire books could come out of that and its aftermath.

So true. The title of the book for IFA is "It Worked Exactly As Planned" by Elon Musk and Team and be about this big:

The title of the book set for the OFT (and every other Starliner milestone mission) is "How Many Ways to F-Up and Still Fleece the American Tax Payer" edited by Boeing and It's Army of Well Paid Lobbyists, Politicians, and Government Officials and would be about this big:

But there are right ways and wrong ways to do air launching. Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit drops its rocket horizontally from a Boeing 747 flying at 35,000 feet going Mach 0.7. We “toss” our rocket while flying in a 45-degree climb at 78,000 feet going Mach 2.2, which is much more exciting. You can see the curvature of the Earth.

Launching higher, faster, and at the proper angle lets us use a smaller cheaper rocket on a smaller cheaper aircraft for a lower launch price.

Why is 45 degrees "the proper angle"? I'm not an expert so I can't tell if this is nonsense or if there's a good reason that I'm missing.

It’s entirely dependent on the launch profile. For a given amount of thrust (and acceleration), there’s a natural “turn” as horizontal velocity continues to increase, but vertical velocity is absorbed by gravity. For their rocket and staging parameters, that may simply be the appropriate angle to begin this turn and follow it all the way into an appropriate orbit.

You've touched on something that's nagged at me for a while and I don't have anything like the tools to answer. If I'm on New Shepherd on the ground then I'm travelling with the ground at up to 1000mph. If I go directly up, then I don't gain anymore rotational speed but I am further out - so surely I start to drift away from my landing site? How much do they have to account for this? You can say the atmosphere will push NS round, does this account for it? How high would I have to go before this became a factor? Or am I simply making this up?

Quoting:"Feels extremely remorseful ... Maezawa has requested the show's cancellation citing "personal reasons." "Despite my genuine and honest determination toward the show, there was a part of me that still had mixed feelings about my participation," he wrote on Twitter. "To think that 27,722 women, with earnest intentions and courage, had used their precious time to apply makes me feel extremely remorseful to conclude and inform everyone with this selfish decision of mine." "

Let's face it, if you plan on funding technology with media there's only one tried and true solution. In this case the answer is this: Space Porn.

Ohhh man, history has proven that porn alone might not be a powerful enough motivation: look at this Pornhub crowdfunding campaign:

The capsule, which is 8.8 meters long, has a capacity for up to six taikonauts.

If it follows the traditional trifurcated Russian approach of service/reentry/orbital modules then that is going to be a tight squeeze. The new clown car of HSF doubling down on Soyuz?

From the pictures, it appears more American derived than Russian derived.

You are right. It closely resembles Dragon. The photos also seem contradictory. One shows a pressure vessel apparently filling up nearly all the conical frustum portion (unlike Dragon which necks its pressure vessel inwards towards the bottom for extra room for propellant tanks etc) while another seems to show substantial RCS elements and possibly an equipment bay around the base. The trunk/SM apparently has RCS thrusters unlike the Dragon trunk.

But there are right ways and wrong ways to do air launching. Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit drops its rocket horizontally from a Boeing 747 flying at 35,000 feet going Mach 0.7. We “toss” our rocket while flying in a 45-degree climb at 78,000 feet going Mach 2.2, which is much more exciting. You can see the curvature of the Earth.

Launching higher, faster, and at the proper angle lets us use a smaller cheaper rocket on a smaller cheaper aircraft for a lower launch price.

Why is 45 degrees "the proper angle"? I'm not an expert so I can't tell if this is nonsense or if there's a good reason that I'm missing.

It’s entirely dependent on the launch profile. For a given amount of thrust (and acceleration), there’s a natural “turn” as horizontal velocity continues to increase, but vertical velocity is absorbed by gravity. For their rocket and staging parameters, that may simply be the appropriate angle to begin this turn and follow it all the way into an appropriate orbit.

You've touched on something that's nagged at me for a while and I don't have anything like the tools to answer. If I'm on New Shepherd on the ground then I'm travelling with the ground at up to 1000mph. If I go directly up, then I don't gain anymore rotational speed but I am further out - so surely I start to drift away from my landing site? How much do they have to account for this? You can say the atmosphere will push NS round, does this account for it? How high would I have to go before this became a factor? Or am I simply making this up?

The rocket is constantly making small course adjustments the entire time to compensate for cross winds and turbulence, so having it make a few extra nudges to stay above the landing area isn't much of a problem.

If you want to actually work out the math:6400km*2pi = 40212km / 24h = 1675km/h surface velocity6500km*2pi = 40840km / 24h = 1701km/h Karmon Line geo-stationary velocityFigure the entire flight will only last 10min, so the maximum drift would be less than 4km.

But there are right ways and wrong ways to do air launching. Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit drops its rocket horizontally from a Boeing 747 flying at 35,000 feet going Mach 0.7. We “toss” our rocket while flying in a 45-degree climb at 78,000 feet going Mach 2.2, which is much more exciting. You can see the curvature of the Earth.

Launching higher, faster, and at the proper angle lets us use a smaller cheaper rocket on a smaller cheaper aircraft for a lower launch price.

Why is 45 degrees "the proper angle"? I'm not an expert so I can't tell if this is nonsense or if there's a good reason that I'm missing.

It’s entirely dependent on the launch profile. For a given amount of thrust (and acceleration), there’s a natural “turn” as horizontal velocity continues to increase, but vertical velocity is absorbed by gravity. For their rocket and staging parameters, that may simply be the appropriate angle to begin this turn and follow it all the way into an appropriate orbit.

You've touched on something that's nagged at me for a while and I don't have anything like the tools to answer. If I'm on New Shepherd on the ground then I'm travelling with the ground at up to 1000mph. If I go directly up, then I don't gain anymore rotational speed but I am further out - so surely I start to drift away from my landing site? How much do they have to account for this? You can say the atmosphere will push NS round, does this account for it? How high would I have to go before this became a factor? Or am I simply making this up?

The rocket is constantly making small course adjustments the entire time to compensate for cross winds and turbulence, so having it make a few extra nudges to stay above the landing area isn't much of a problem.

If you want to actually work out the math:6400km*2pi = 40212km / 24h = 1675km/h surface velocity6500km*2pi = 40840km / 24h = 1701km/h Karmon Line geo-stationary velocityFigure the entire flight will only last 10min, so the maximum drift would be less than 4km.

Thanks! It's simple when you put it like that. One for the "wish I was smarter" regret list then .

But there are right ways and wrong ways to do air launching. Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit drops its rocket horizontally from a Boeing 747 flying at 35,000 feet going Mach 0.7. We “toss” our rocket while flying in a 45-degree climb at 78,000 feet going Mach 2.2, which is much more exciting. You can see the curvature of the Earth.

Launching higher, faster, and at the proper angle lets us use a smaller cheaper rocket on a smaller cheaper aircraft for a lower launch price.

Why is 45 degrees "the proper angle"? I'm not an expert so I can't tell if this is nonsense or if there's a good reason that I'm missing.

It’s entirely dependent on the launch profile. For a given amount of thrust (and acceleration), there’s a natural “turn” as horizontal velocity continues to increase, but vertical velocity is absorbed by gravity. For their rocket and staging parameters, that may simply be the appropriate angle to begin this turn and follow it all the way into an appropriate orbit.

You've touched on something that's nagged at me for a while and I don't have anything like the tools to answer. If I'm on New Shepherd on the ground then I'm travelling with the ground at up to 1000mph. If I go directly up, then I don't gain anymore rotational speed but I am further out - so surely I start to drift away from my landing site? How much do they have to account for this? You can say the atmosphere will push NS round, does this account for it? How high would I have to go before this became a factor? Or am I simply making this up?

Yes the rocket will need to not fly straight up otherwise it will land downrange due to rotation of the Earth. The flight is short so the effect is small. The rocket can compensate on the way up with gimballed thrust and on the way down with fins. Rockets need to do this anyways due to offcenter forces pushing the rocket slightly off course.

Side note I was in field artillery. The rotation of the Earth is used in deflection and elevation calculations to remove that small source of error. As are a lot of other things like the temperature of the powder, the density of the air (varies by temp), humidity, wind speeds, wear of the barrels, etc.

hard to see how a solid rocket and maintaining an aging aircraft, as well as storage for the excessive spare parts and airframes can cost $1m per launch specially when you figure the pilot and air crew as well.

hard to see how a solid rocket and maintaining an aging aircraft, as well as storage for the excessive spare parts and airframes can cost $1m per launch specially when you figure the pilot and air crew as well.

and even if you somehow manage to do that it is hard to see how 16 kg (12U * 1.33 kg ea) for $1M is going to attract enough business to remain viable especially with a proven Electron launch being $6M for 250 kg.

The bigger red flags are the false claims on the blog which make me question if he even has a kerbal space program level of understanding when it comes to orbits and rockets. He says they can put 12U into any orbit. Well no there are plenty of orbits they could not reach at all and even if they can put 16 kg into LEO and could reach say MEO it wouldn't be with 16 kg. The claim about replacing GPS sats is even more dubious. Not only are the sats quite heavy they are also placed into a pretty high energy orbit (circular MEO 20,000 km highly inclined) which means it requires rather beefy launch vehicles to lift them.

If you're going to buy surplus Soviet hardware instead of a mach 2.05 Mig-21 I think you'd want a mach 2.83 Mig-25 or Mig-31; or if hanging a heavy rocket on a 25/31 would require too much work, a Mig-23 fighter bomber has similar capabilities to the 21 while being somewhat faster at Mach 2.35. The general point that there're lots of old fighters with mach 2 or higher afterburner speeds is entirely valid.

I think I'd go with an English Electric Lightning - according to legend the only aircraft with the practical speed and rate of climb to actually manage to intercept Concorde, during NATO's various informal attempts. I believe there may be a handful still airworthy.

Problem is that the Lightning never had much of a munitions capability at the best of times, so you're hardly going to be able to launch much of a useful rocket ... yet the same would also be true of a Starfighter, if that's what Cringeworthy is really planning on using.

One of the commenters on Cringely's blog noted that the specific picture of an F-104 used in the post itself seems to be photoshopped from a picture uploaded years ago by Starfighters Inc., a company which rents out the plane. If Cringely's company has actually purchased the planes, why do they need to use (and modify) an image from a different company?